• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christianity without Paul

Muffled

Jesus in me
What would the "Christian" religion be without Paul's epistles?

I suspect that there would be less of a tendency towards legalism. On the other hand there are always those who like reverting to the old covenant and ignoring what jesus has to say.
 

Shermana

Heretic
I suspect that there would be less of a tendency towards legalism. On the other hand there are always those who like reverting to the old covenant and ignoring what jesus has to say.

No, it's the people who DON'T go by the Torah who ignore what Jesus had to say. Most of them have some odd interpretations of Matthew 5:17-20. Who do you suppose he was referring to the 'least in the kingdom"? Who do you suppose he meant that the "Doers of Lawlessness" were in 7:22-23?

Do you know what Jeremiah is talking about when referring to the New Covenant? The whole "Law will be written on their hearts" thing? If anything, the "New Covenant" is even more strict than the old. It says that people will know the Law without being taught. Was Jeremiah referring to a different Law? A different covenant? Then there's the issue of the Messianic requirements in Isaiah. Do you think Isaiah 66 does not apply to the Messianic prophecies?

And what's wrong with "legalism"? Do you think Christians are allowed to murder, rape, steal, bear false witness, commit adultery, and defraud? It seems most "Christians" historically have felt they're allowed to do such things....now if you say they aren't....that would be legalistic wouldn't it. Why don't you explain what legalism means to you. If I said that those whose good works aren't sufficient will be "Spat out as lukewarm", is that legalistic too? Why did Jesus say "Strive for the narrow gate"? Wouldn't having to do anything to get into heaven be "legalistic"? If you're NOT legalistic, that means you believe you can do anything you want. Even Paul didn't say that. So is Paul legalistic? Why does Paul say "AS THE LAW SAYS" in regards to women speaking in church? (Note, the question is not about why Paul says women can't speak in church, it's about why he says "AS THE LAW SAYS").

Even Paul could be argued to be "legalistic". Corinthians 6 comes to mind. How is that whole thing about drunks and fornicators and Arseneketoi not going to the Kingdom NOT legalistic?
 
Last edited:

Muffled

Jesus in me
No, it's the people who DON'T go by the Torah who ignore what Jesus had to say. Most of them have some odd interpretations of Matthew 5:17-20. Who do you suppose he was referring to the 'least in the kingdom"? Who do you suppose he meant that the "Doers of Lawlessness" were in 7:22-23?

Do you know what Jeremiah is talking about when referring to the New Covenant? The whole "Law will be written on their hearts" thing? If anything, the "New Covenant" is even more strict than the old. It says that people will know the Law without being taught. Was Jeremiah referring to a different Law? A different covenant? Then there's the issue of the Messianic requirements in Isaiah. Do you think Isaiah 66 does not apply to the Messianic prophecies?

And what's wrong with "legalism"? Do you think Christians are allowed to murder, rape, steal, bear false witness, commit adultery, and defraud? It seems most "Christians" historically have felt they're allowed to do such things....now if you say they aren't....that would be legalistic wouldn't it. Why don't you explain what legalism means to you. If I said that those whose good works aren't sufficient will be "Spat out as lukewarm", is that legalistic too? Why did Jesus say "Strive for the narrow gate"? Wouldn't having to do anything to get into heaven be "legalistic"? If you're NOT legalistic, that means you believe you can do anything you want. Even Paul didn't say that. So is Paul legalistic? Why does Paul say "AS THE LAW SAYS" in regards to women speaking in church? (Note, the question is not about why Paul says women can't speak in church, it's about why he says "AS THE LAW SAYS").

Even Paul could be argued to be "legalistic". Corinthians 6 comes to mind. How is that whole thing about drunks and fornicators and Arseneketoi not going to the Kingdom NOT legalistic?

When I refer to Legalism I am referring to that which man requires. For instance Paul says the church needs elders but Jesus does not require that. In a perfect situation Jesus is all the elder that anyone needs. Of course the OT had priests but that was due to the fact that there was a whole sacrificial system to support that isn't there now that Jesus has replaced it.
 
Last edited:

Shermana

Heretic
Okay, well, Jesus spoke quite clearly that there were strict requirements to get into Heaven, that one must "work hard", and that one must obey the commandments to enter into life. The usual interpretation of "Legalism" is "having to actually do anything" especially in the spectrum of the Mosaic Law. Whether Jesus replaced the Sacrificial system or not (or served as a temporary replacement until the Temple is rebuilt as in Ezekiel), the fact remains that Jesus was quite "legalistic" in the traditional sense, if your idea is that "Legalism" means a bunch of manmade requirements, then you are now saying that PAUL is the "legalist" yet you earlier said that without Paul it would be legalistic, since Paul states that the church needs elders. Therefore, in this interpretation of Legalism, Paul is the legalist one and Christianity without Paul would have been more purely about what Yashua actually taught.
 

F0uad

Well-Known Member
I think without Paul it would like be much more like Islam and that you finally work for heaven instead of believing your saved by faith only.

Ps: People wouldn't to belief that jesus(p) died on the cross it wouldn't be necessary
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I think without Paul it would like be much more like Islam and that you finally work for heaven instead of believing your saved by faith only.

Ps: People wouldn't to belief that jesus(p) died on the cross it wouldn't be necessary
You've illustrated the whole point of Xy. Thank you.
The point is that we can never do enough, work enough, be good enough to merit reconciliation -- we've strayed too far and gotten too dirty. So God became dirty for us in order to reconcile us to God's Self. The cross shows us both our dirt and God's love for us -- the love in which we were originally created.
 

F0uad

Well-Known Member
You've illustrated the whole point of Xy. Thank you.
The point is that we can never do enough, work enough, be good enough to merit reconciliation -- we've strayed too far and gotten too dirty. So God became dirty for us in order to reconcile us to God's Self. The cross shows us both our dirt and God's love for us -- the love in which we were originally created.

Yup the love is so great that he sacrifices hes ''only'' son to save us, while in the mean-time he is the son :facepalm:
Off-course god couldn't just merely forgive us if we repent and do good-works. A innocent person who never sinned has to die for people who sinned this is real mercy and justice we want to see from a judge...
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
A innocent person who never sinned has to die for people who sinned this is real mercy and justice we want to see from a judge...
Only if you believe in substitutionary atonement.

If God "merely forgave us" it would necessarily have to be from afar. But reconciliation by taking our nature brings us close to God.
 

F0uad

Well-Known Member
Only if you believe in substitutionary atonement.

If God "merely forgave us" it would necessarily have to be from afar. But reconciliation by taking our nature brings us close to God.

Killing a innocent person who never sinned instead is much worse then ''Merely forgive people'', also i never assumed simply forgive but by repentance, good deeds/works, praying and holding to the laws *Sounds much more reasonable to me*
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Killing a innocent person who never sinned instead is much worse then ''Merely forgive people'', also i never assumed simply forgive but by repentance, good deeds/works, praying and holding to the laws *Sounds much more reasonable to me*

A true Christian theologian.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Killing a innocent person who never sinned instead is much worse then ''Merely forgive people'', also i never assumed simply forgive but by repentance, good deeds/works, praying and holding to the laws *Sounds much more reasonable to me*
Well, again, I don't hold with substitutionary atonement, so your first sentence is preaching to the choir.

With regard to your last statement, it may sound more reasonable, but it's far less relational. And since love is the basis for the Law, relationship is the name of the game.
 

Shermana

Heretic
You've illustrated the whole point of Xy. Thank you.
The point is that we can never do enough, work enough, be good enough to merit reconciliation -- we've strayed too far and gotten too dirty. So God became dirty for us in order to reconcile us to God's Self. The cross shows us both our dirt and God's love for us -- the love in which we were originally created.

"The whole point of Xy"

And of course, the whole point of XY has nothing to do with actually following Jesus's teachings with this common interpretation, no need to actually listen to Jesus, because everything he said about your works being important and striving to avoid sin and who gets into the kingdom and who doesn't, we can just throw out the window. No need to "work hard to enter the kingdom", we can just ignore all that he says about the subject, so shut up Jesus, you talk too much! (sarcasm). Heck, even Paul specifically wrote that your bad works can get you barred from the Kingdom. Even Paul doesn't agree with this malarkey!! The guy said "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling". When was the last time a Paulinian "Christian" tried to work out his salvation with fear and trembling? The 4th century?
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
"The whole point of Xy"

And of course, the whole point of XY has nothing to do with actually following Jesus's teachings with this common interpretation, no need to actually listen to Jesus, because everything he said about your works being important and striving to avoid sin and who gets into the kingdom and who doesn't, we can just throw out the window. No need to "work hard to enter the kingdom", we can just ignore all that he says about the subject, so shut up Jesus, you talk too much! (sarcasm). Heck, even Paul specifically wrote that your bad works can get you barred from the Kingdom. Even Paul doesn't agree with this malarkey!! The guy said "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling". When was the last time a Paulinian "Christian" tried to work out his salvation with fear and trembling? The 4th century?
Hey, I didn't write the Bible, I just report what I think it says.

Yes, Jesus talks about doing good works -- so does Paul. But we do those good works because we are enlightened children of God -- not in order to become enlightened children of God. The act of Incarnation (God's act) reconciled us -- not our acts of good works. The good works themselves are sacramental (they provide outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace), but they do not effect that grace.
 

Shermana

Heretic
Hey, I didn't write the Bible, I just report what I think it says.

Yes, Jesus talks about doing good works -- so does Paul. But we do those good works because we are enlightened children of God -- not in order to become enlightened children of God. The act of Incarnation (God's act) reconciled us -- not our acts of good works. The good works themselves are sacramental (they provide outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace), but they do not effect that grace.

This is an extremely common view of the faith vs works by the anti-works crowd that I've encountered countless times.

So when Jesus said one must work hard to enter the kingdom, what he should have said was "You will work hard once you enter the kingdom".

So who were the Luke warm in Revelation, in this view? It specifically says that the Luke warm are those who don't do enough good acts, and they are spat out. Looks like that shoots this case down.

And then there's James who says that such faith does NOT save.

So then, what kind of "good works" would a Christian do, in this view, that a member of any religion would NOT do? What kind of good works do these "Enlightened Children of G-d" do in the first place?
 

F0uad

Well-Known Member
This is an extremely common view of the faith vs works by the anti-works crowd that I've encountered countless times.

So when Jesus said one must work hard to enter the kingdom, what he should have said was "You will work hard once you enter the kingdom".

So who were the Luke warm in Revelation, in this view? It specifically says that the Luke warm are those who don't do enough good acts, and they are spat out. Looks like that shoots this case down.

And then there's James who says that such faith does NOT save.

So then, what kind of "good works" would a Christian do, in this view, that a member of any religion would NOT do? What kind of good works do these "Enlightened Children of G-d" do in the first place?

You could just make it easier and quote Matthew where jesus(p) said if you break the smallest commandment you will go to hell. But then it will open a new can of worms because according to the most Christians Jesus(p) already paid for there sins so it will be a contradiction.

I think we have to accept that Christians can turn there religion into whatever they want, i don't belief in General they follow there own scriptures and if i look into the west i have a damn good reason to assume that.

If we want to look what ''Real'' Christianity should look like ''with scriptures included'' we can best look at the Orthodoxes Christians who live in Jerusalem but offcourse they belief in Atonement and the trinity what makes no sense in real-life.
 

Shermana

Heretic
You could just make it easier and quote Matthew where jesus(p) said if you break the smallest commandment you will go to hell. But then it will open a new can of worms because according to the most Christians Jesus(p) already paid for there sins so it will be a contradiction.

I think we have to accept that Christians can turn there religion into whatever they want, i don't belief in General they follow there own scriptures and if i look into the west i have a damn good reason to assume that.

If we want to look what ''Real'' Christianity should look like ''with scriptures included'' we can best look at the Orthodoxes Christians who live in Jerusalem but offcourse they belief in Atonement and the trinity what makes no sense in real-life.

Yes indeed, "Christians" have historically twisted and turned what Jesus says to suit their theology into a labyrinth of contradictions, virtually ignoring what is actually commanded to placate their desire for a feel-good theology. And then they use cherry picked passages of Paul and Acts to justify their beliefs (many of them most likely interpolated by anti-judaizers years afterward). The scripture most assuredly says that they will burn. I'd love to help them, but they often are doggedly determined to head for the fire as if what Jesus says doesn't actually matter. How "Christians" are able to deal with the cognitive dissonance of virtually ignoring everything Jesus says about how your behavior and adherence to the commandments determines your fate is beyond me.

What "Real Christianity" looks like is close to Messianic Judaism. Anything else is one of the heresies spoken of in the scripture. Heck, even Paul would ferociously disagree with how the mainstream churches treat his epistles and their doctrines. They have all kinds of ways of twisting what it directly, plainly says, to suit their one-size-fits-all dogmas of not having to actually do anything that might be inconvenient. For all their emphasis on Acts 15 (Which was most likely interpolated by anti-Judaizers), they often have no problem eating bloody steaks. It's as if they don't want ANY burdens or restrictions that might possibly make a single inconvenience.

They think they are allowed to fornicate, but Paul says Fornicators don't make it to the kingdom: "Well shut up Paul, the doctrine of grace beats your own words, right?" It's as if they don't even want to listen to what Paul himself says, while relying on Paul's epistles (albeit very cherry picked), the way they justify their lifestyle in the face of what even Paul says against it is hilarious. They think they go to heaven just for believing, not only did Jesus condemn such a view (Matthew 7:22-23), but even PAUL condemned this view. The understanding of Paul to begin with is so radically skewed it's amazing, maybe I should be sticking up for him, because the same "Christians" who use him to contradict what Jesus teaches, don't even abide by what he says. Whether it's ignorance, apathy, or rebelliousness, I can't decide.
 
Last edited:

F0uad

Well-Known Member
Yes indeed, "Christians" have historically twisted and turned what Jesus says to suit their theology into a labyrinth of contradictions, virtually ignoring what is actually commanded to placate their desire for a feel-good theology. And then they use cherry picked passages of Paul and Acts to justify their beliefs (many of them most likely interpolated by anti-judaizers years afterward). The scripture most assuredly says that they will burn. I'd love to help them, but they often are doggedly determined to head for the fire as if what Jesus says doesn't actually matter. How "Christians" are able to deal with the cognitive dissonance of virtually ignoring everything Jesus says about how your behavior and adherence to the commandments determines your fate is beyond me.

What "Real Christianity" looks like is close to Messianic Judaism. Anything else is one of the heresies spoken of in the scripture. Heck, even Paul would ferociously disagree with how the mainstream churches treat his epistles and their doctrines. They have all kinds of ways of twisting what it directly, plainly says, to suit their one-size-fits-all dogmas of not having to actually do anything that might be inconvenient. For all their emphasis on Acts 15 (Which was most likely interpolated by anti-Judaizers), they often have no problem eating bloody steaks. It's as if they don't want ANY burdens or restrictions that might possibly make a single inconvenience.

They think they are allowed to fornicate, but Paul says Fornicators don't make it to the kingdom: "Well shut up Paul, the doctrine of grace beats your own words, right?" It's as if they don't even want to listen to what Paul himself says, while relying on Paul's epistles (albeit very cherry picked), the way they justify their lifestyle in the face of what even Paul says against it is hilarious. They think they go to heaven just for believing, not only did Jesus condemn such a view (Matthew 7:22-23), but even PAUL condemned this view. The understanding of Paul to begin with is so radically skewed it's amazing, maybe I should be sticking up for him, because the same "Christians" who use him to contradict what Jesus teaches, don't even abide by what he says. Whether it's ignorance, apathy, or rebelliousness, I can't decide.

Her her spoken like a real gentlemen, thats why i most of the time refuse calling them Christians because if we look at the definition ''Christian'' we can clearly see it means ''Follower of Christ'' yet they rather follow Paul who killed Christians according to there own scriptures, hence he never met Jesus(p) according to the scriptures only true a vision he had according to him alone. :facepalm:
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
This is an extremely common view of the faith vs works by the anti-works crowd that I've encountered countless times.

So when Jesus said one must work hard to enter the kingdom, what he should have said was "You will work hard once you enter the kingdom".

So who were the Luke warm in Revelation, in this view? It specifically says that the Luke warm are those who don't do enough good acts, and they are spat out. Looks like that shoots this case down.

And then there's James who says that such faith does NOT save.

So then, what kind of "good works" would a Christian do, in this view, that a member of any religion would NOT do? What kind of good works do these "Enlightened Children of G-d" do in the first place?
Nice, lame try at misdirection.
 

Shermana

Heretic
Nice, lame try at misdirection.

Right. The irony is overwhelming. Feel free to explain why its a misdirection, or feel free to actually respond to the actual points. I really fail to see how mentioning the Luke warm being spat out in Revelation is misdirection. Maybe someone else can explain since you don't seem to be that concerned about honest discourse. Which is very typical of the anti-works crowd, they usually make such kinds of replies when holes are poked in their balloon.

And of course, merely asking what kind of "Good works" an englihtened Christian does is a lame attempt at misdirection. Yeah, I can imagine everyone reading agreeing with that.

It's amazing how every single time, I mean EVERY single time I have this discussion with an anti-works, and this has happened more times than I can remember, that they NEVER answer the question of what kind of good works are specific to the saved Christian. I mean seriously, it's funny, I have yet to find a single anti-works Christian who dares to both addressing what kind of good works they think are the "fruit of the saved" to begin with that are unique to them and no other.
 
Last edited:
Top